On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:34PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Traditionally d-l has suggested to folks with this problem that they use > the GPL with explicit explanatory text explaining what they take > "preferred form for modification" (i.e., source) to mean for their work > (e.g., an electronic version in the original format, or something like > it). That should provide the same protections as the GPL, though > generally it amounts to mandating some form of electronic distribution > along with printed forms, which can have practical problems.
Commercial printings can just make a written offer to provide the source on demand, which is then satisfied by sticking it on a website and referencing the site from the text. > But as for the practical problem of distributing hardcopy versions, I > simply don't see a way to satisfy the criteria: > > - DFSG free > - copyleft (i.e., can't take it proprietary) > - easy to distribute hardcopy (i.e., without electronic versions) > > This is because the last two requirements directly contradict, unless > you're willing to add extra restrictions as a way to bridge the two > (e.g., you must provide an electronic version on a web site), which > would violate the DFSG. I'm eager to be proven wrong here, but I just > don't think it can be done. The closest you can come, I think, is to > require that electronic versions accompany hardcopy, but with an > exception for copies under some number (e.g., 100). Do d-l people agree > that such a license could be DFSG free? If it's free without the exception then it's free with it; the exception does not make it free. Please don't pick an arbitrary number though; my class at university had about 110 people in it, so a limit of 100 would be problematic. Say "for non-commercial use" or something - that should cover all the cases. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
